Introduction to GOVT 2301
Here are power points for this week's readings, use this as your primary source of information for the assessment questions. Please make sure you can not only open this, but can open the links within the slides. If you cannot, let me know soon:
The notes below are supplemental, but not necessary for the assessment. Goals:
This section is designed to prepare you for the material to come by introducing you to the concepts that the American governing system is founded on, as well as points of comparison with other systems. If after reading the material below, as well as the powerpoints above, you can fully answer these questions, you should do well on any test or written work associated with it.
The definition(s) of government.
The essential components of government.
The origins of government.
The difference between autocratic, oligarchic, and democratic government, and the manner in which each is contained in the American system.
The definition of democracy.
The difference between totalitarian, authoritarian and constitutional government.
The justification for, and consequences of individual liberty.
The definition of politics and the nature of political institutions.
Ideology and the basic differences between the classic and contemporary uses of the terms "conservatism" and "liberalism."
The tension between equality and liberty.
Relevant Blog Tags: These will take you to previous posts on my blog which relate to some of the subject matter conatined in this section.
It is probably appropriate to begin this class by defining terms. We'll begin with the term "government."
A variety of definitions are often used to define the word government. Here are a few:
The act of governing; the exercise of authority; the administration of laws; control; direction; regulation; as, civil, church, or family government
A government is the body within an organization that has the authority to make and enforce rules, laws and regulation
The institution with the monopoly on the legitimate use of coercion in society.
the political direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, and states; direction of the affairs of a state, community, etc.; political administration:
Government is necessary to the existence of civilized society.
the institutions and procedures through which a land and its people are ruled.
A variety of concepts are central to the definition. These include institutions, procedures, authority, laws, land and people. The governing institutions in the United States are the legislative, executive and judicial branches. These are the venues where people who are elected or appointed by the appropriate people come to either make, implement, or interpret the law. Within each of these institutions are certain procedures for how things are conducted. These procedures include the need for a police officer to have "probably cause" before searching someone, or the ability of a small number of Senators to filibuster a piece of legislation, or the ability of the Supreme Court to declare that a law violates the Constitution. When government makes a decision, it is authoritative. It can be applied corrosively if necessary.
Everything government does revolves around the idea that it is either making, enforcing, or interpreting law. But as with defining "government," defining "law" can be difficult as well. The terms can be slippery. Hard and fast definitions of the term that are acceptable to everyone are impossible to find. For our purposes, we can distinguish between statutory, common, and constitutional law. Statutory law refers to acts of Congress, or any other legislative body. Common law refers to the body of legal code, based on the decisions made by judges over the centuries that has developed over the course of British and American history. Constitutional law refers to those produces and stipulations that are written in the U.S. Constitution. The Essential Components of Government: A Means of Coercion and a Means of Collecting Revenue
The definitions above suggest that there are a variety of components to government. This can certainly be the case. The decentralized American system, has three branches, 50 state and thousands of local governments. Over the course of American history the functions of government have grown complex, but there are only two institutions that are necessary in a government.
The first is a means for coercing people to follow the law, which can be a military or police force, or some type of militia. Governments cannot achieve its goals -- whether we consider it to be legitimate or illegitimate -- if they lack the ability to compel people to follow its laws, or to perform certain services like obtain a drivers license or submit to conscription. In fact laws are often meaningless if they are not enforced. We tend to not obey speed limits voluntarily.
The second is a means for collecting revenue, generally by imposing some type of tax, tariff or fee. This is necessarily of course to earn the revenue needed to obtain the mechanisms necessary to coerce people to follow the law, so there's a circular element to these two components. It's worth noting that opposition to taxes tend to be one of the more effective political rallying cries in American history. It would not be an overstatement to say that the country was founded by an anti-tax movement, so the proper design of taxation systems have been a challenge ever since. The Origins of Government.
Key Terms: Coercion, Consent.
How did governments emerge? What factors drove their creation? This is a tough question, one that pits historical explanations against theoretical ones. History tells a brutal story, one based on coercion. People are coerced into a governing system by a more powerful force. They are conquered by the Romans or Egyptians or Persians or whomever. A conquered people is often subjugated, so a system of government based solely on coercion tends to also stratify people into classes. Some are the permanent ruling class, while others are obliged to follow the laws imposed on them by the ruling class. See feudalism for an example. Philosophical systems are sometimes developed to justify these hierarchical structures. Plato's noble lie is an example.
More recently, at least in a historical sense, governments have been argued to have developed on consent, or at least the claim is that this is the most legitimate way to develop a government. This argument is often dated to the works of John Locke who hypothesized that a state of nature -- a world without government -- where people have full right to life, liberty and property would also be dangerous. It is one thing to have a right to something, it is another thing to secure that right. In order to do so, rational individuals would consent to form an organization -- a government -- to that end. The concept of consent differs substantively from that of coercion since it rests on the idea that each individual is in a position to offer consent, that is, they are equal to a large degree. We explore Locke's ideas more fully in the following section.
Governments tend to fall into three categories depending upon where sovereign power is located. The term sovereignty refers to the supreme political power and specifically where in fact it can be found in a political order. In an autocratic system, sovereignty is located in a single individual, in an oligarchy, in a small handful of well placed people, while in a democracy, it rests with the people. A word on the concept is important before we proceed. While the concept of sovereignty seems straight forward, it has a peculiar twist in a constitutional system, based on the people, with representative institutions that claim their authority comes from the fact that it was delegated to them by the people. Has sovereignty been transfered from the people to the representatives? In our constitutional system, is sovereignty still vested in the people, or was it granted to the people's house (the Congress) which acts for the benefit of the people and is subject to removal, through elections, by them? Perhaps sovereignty rests somewhere between the two? It's a theoretical point to be sure, but played a role in the late 19th century when questions were raised about what a city was. Some argued that since these were population centers populated by individuals with unalienable rights, they were discreet autonomous units whose authority rested on popular sovreignty. But this position lost out to the idea that cities existed, as legal entities -- meanign they can cfreate and enforce their own laws -- by a specific grant of the state they resided in. There's more on this point later.
Autocracies can take different forms, but they all share the common characteristic that one person holds all power. The term dictator is commonly used and has a history dating back to Ancient Rome. In the Roman Constitution, a provision existed that during times of crisis, an individual could be vested with unlimited power for a brief period of time in order to consolidate the resources and decision-making necessary to confront the crisis. One of these dictators, Cincinnatus, actually developed a good reputation over history because he gave up power after completing his appointed objectives. Centuries later, Washington would be held up as a modern day Cincinnatus because he refused to allow himself to be appointed as a monarch after the end of the revolutionary war as was, and still is the custom. On the other hand, another Roman -- Julius Caesar -- used the position to leverage for greater power, a move which led to the end of the Roman Republic and the establishment of the Roman Empire. The comparison between these two people helps point out the pros and cons of autocratic systems. Their advantage is the efficiency they offer a capable, virtuous leader to govern effectively, but the disadvantage is the opportunity it provides an ambitious person to rule arbitrarily, and despotically.
Oligarchies also have long histories, and are generally societies that are run by some type of elite. Their position may be due to birth, or wealth, or by having a privileged position in a religious or bureaucratic institution. Aristocratic systems, such as the British system which American government evolved from, are based on birthright. Being a member of the aristocracy brought with it certain privileges, a guaranteed seat in a governing institution (the House of Lords) for example. The term oligarchy refers to a broad range of systems that have different means of determining who the elites in society were, and giving them special status on the assumption that they could rule society better than the common folk. The use of property ownership as a criteria for voting in the early years of the United States was based on the belief that those that owned America were best able to govern it. To be wealthy was a sign of ability, and why not allow them to rule? The concept of a meritocracy is related to this. One of the deep seated beliefs Americans have is that we all have an equal opportunity to succeed, which means that those who climb to the top deserve their positions. The knowledge and expertise these people bring to a governing system ensures that it will be well run. But the flip side is that those in positions of authority who can craft society's rules can design them to their own advantage. Those who have the gold make the rules, as the saying goes. So oligarchies can introduce bias in society. This distorts the concept of equal opportunity. Perhaps some have a greater advantage in where they start out in society and do not have to truly prove their abilities.
Democracies also have long histories, dating back at least to ancient Athens. The difference between a democracy and the previous two forms of government is that it allows the governed to rule themselves. As we know, the concept of self government lies at the heart of the American governing system and is tightly adhered to by the general public. The advantage of democracy is that people will be more likely to consider the governing system legitimate if they see themselves as being able to influence it. Rather than being coerced by an autocratic or oligarchies elite, the people will be more likely to consent to being governed because if they do not like the nature of the system, they can change it. Both the Roman Republic and the British system, despite their oligarchic natures, allowed for non elites to control a governing institution in order to help keep the peace. In Rome it was the Plebeian Council while in Britain it was, and till is, the House of Commons. Without the ability to influence the course of events from the inside, the people have no choice to do so from the outside through protest, riots, and revolution. But it is this aspect of mass behavior which gave democracy a bad reputation. Rather than rule by a thoughtful educated elite, rule would be based upon an uneducated mob. Reason would no longer prevail, only muscle threats and intimidation. Policies would not be based on cool deliberation designed to guarantee long term effectiveness, but on passionate desire for short term satisfaction.
The Manner in Which Each is Contained in the American System: America is an Autocracy, Oligarchy and Democracy all Wrapped in One.
Key Terms: Legislature, Executive, Judiciary.
If you were keeping score, you would have noted that each of the systems outlined above have advantages and disadvantages. We all want a government that is efficient and effective, knowledgeable, and legitimate. But there is no one way to ensure that you get them all. Each of the systems above that have these advantages, also have disadvantages and can lead to governments that are arbitrary in their actions, biased in their rule-making, and prone to mobish, passionate violence. So what to do about this?
This provides an opportunity to introduce ahead of time the three branches of government -- the separated powers -- and the mechanism which keeps them separated -- the checks and balances. The philosophers tell us that there are three distinct things that governments do, they make laws, they implement laws and they interpret laws. These powers, in the hands of one person, group or institution, can lead to tyranny. They must be separated into distinct institutions. In the American Constitution -- as well as the state constitutions and local charters -- this is accomplished by vesting these three powers in legislative, executive and judicial branches. In order to ensure that they stay separated, each is given the power to check the power of the other two, which means that the power of each is also checked by those two as well. This is what allows the benefits of autocratic, oligarchic and democratic systems to be incorporated into the government, while allowing harms of each to be checked.
The executive branch is autocratic be design. Since it is the branch that carries out the law, is clearly the branch that benefits from an autocratic design. In the United States, there is only one person on top of the executive branch. Once a decision has been made to do something, it is helpful to give it to one person to do it, if it is to be done well. But since this can lead to the arbitrary use of power, it is wise to have a legislative branch than can provide oversight over the actions of the executive and a judiciary that can determine if the executive has violated Constitutional rules while executing the laws.
The judicial branch is the oligarchic branch. It interprets the law and is the one that most benefits from learned members. It is the only one singled out in the Federalist Papers as requiring members with qualifications, presumably meaning training in the law. The appointment and confirmation process, backed up by lifetime tenure, is designed to free judges to make decisions removed from popular, short term, pressures that may say more about the politics of the moment rather than a cool sober approach to the law. This can potentially lead to bias in its decisions however, which is why the legislature is often in a position to rewrite legislation, signed by the president, that it believes was in error.
The legislative branch is the democratic branch. Since it is the branch which writes the laws, must be connected closely to the people, especially in regard to taxation. The House of Representatives especially is designed to be closely connected to the people, with direct elections and two year terms of service, so that they can be quickly controlled by the general population if they veer to far in one direction or another. This can make them legitimate in the eyes of the population. But since this can lead to unruliness, and ineffectiveness, their actions are tempered by the other institutions. The Senate, for example, was originally elected by state legislatures, and Senators served for six year overlapping terms. Since they have to approve of any law passed by the House before it goes forward, they can check the more "mobish" tendencies of the House. As can the president who has the power to veto laws sent to him.
The governing system in Texas, while it is similar to the American system, differs from it in some significant ways. Th description above can apply to Texas as well. There are significant differences however that can be traced to the general desire on the part of the framers of the Texas Constitution to limit the power of government far beyond what the framers of the U.S. Constitution sought to accomplish. Briefly put, this was accomplished by establishing an amateur legislature, a plural executive, and an elected judiciary. The Definition of Democracy.
Key Terms: majoritarianism, rights, suffrage.
Since America calls itself a democracy, it is worth investigating what in fact a democracy is. As stated above, the term democracy comes from the Greek word which translates roughly as rule by the people. At its simplest, that means the majority rules. But this creates problems for governance because a passionate majority -- the mob -- can be as oppressive as any autocrat or oligarchy. An unrestrained majority can easily trample the rights of an unpopular minority or individual (this is a point we will hammer on when we cover Federalist #10). In addition, the term does not clarify exactly what the phrase "the people" refers to. The entire population perhaps, or maybe simply a small portion of it. Currently we expect that a democracy fulfills the following three conditions:
Majority Rule
Minority Rights
Universal Suffrage
Yes the majority rules, but it must be limited in order to ensure that the minority has certain rights. In other words, there are certain decisions that are beyond the scope of public decision making. That what it means to have rights, but it creates a conflict. When we discuss the Declaration of Independence, we will pour over the concept of the unalienable rights to (among other things) "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." This is classic liberalism, and rests on the idea that the individual and the state are separate, and the state exists to protect the rights of the individual. But in a democracy, the will of government is the embodiment of the will of the people, In a strict sense, if a democracy wants to place limits on individual liberty, it is free to do so since that is the will of the people. If it wants to impose a religious belief, or restrict certain people's access to the courts, it can do so. But this violates the concept of individual liberty. You can see the dilemma.
Resolving the dilemma was a key concern of the authors of the Constitution. How do you retain the spirit of democracy while protecting individual liberties? The solution was to establish, instead of a direct democracy, and indirect democracy, or a republic. We will go further into this subject later, but think of a direct democracy as the ability of the general population to directly control the actions of government, while a republic places representative institutions between the people and government. The intent is that any sudden fit of passion -- any mobish inclination -- will be checked and policy will be established in a slower, more thoughtful manner.
The third criteria, universal suffrage, requires that all competent adults should be able to vote. This was hardly the case in early America. Suffrage has expanded slowly and fitfully over the course of American history. The Difference between Totalitarian, Authoritarian and Constitutional Governments.
Key Terms: Freedom, the State, Totalitarianism, Authoritarianism, Constitutionalism.
As with the description of autocracy, oligarchy and democracy above, the difference between totalitarian, authoritarian and constitutional government is based on a simple question: How much freedom do people have from government?
In totalitarian systems, the answer is simple. None. Generally the people in these systems are considered subjects of government. The rule of the state is absolute and government regulates all aspects of the lives of individuals. Society is generally structured along a dominant ideology and all institutions, especially educational, media and political institutions, are dominated by the state and opposition is outlawed. Military and police forces are pervasive, as is intelligence collection to root out enemies of the state. Communist and fascist governments tend to take this form. Stalin's Soviet Union and the communist countries of Eastern Europe.
Authoritarian governments are similar to totalitarian governments, but do not have the same degree of pervasive control over the population. Sometimes this is due to circumstance. Authoritarian countries are sometimes in a position where they have to share power with some internal or external force which limits its ability to expand its power further. The military regimes in Chile and Argentina in the 1980s were limited, for example, by the Catholic Church. The degree of freedom in authoritarian governments is greater than in totalitarian systems, and in fact can be quite expansive, providing that the people do not use their freedoms in political ways. The recent crackdown of protesters in Iraq is an example.
Constitutional systems are based on the idea that people are distinct entities from government, and that the relationship between the two systems reflects a contract entered into by the two where the government exists to secure the rights of the people. A constitution is a written manifestation of this agreement and defines the obligations of government, how it will conduct business, and what specific limits exist on its powers.
The Justification for, and Consequences of, Individual Liberty.
In America, we tend to think of freedom as a virtue without necessarily coming to grips with why this is so. The principle philosophical source of the modern conception of liberty is John Locke. He did not originate the idea, but his expression of it was vitally important to the American revolution. We will cover him, his ideas and how they influenced the American system in the following section. But it is also worth considering whether there are material benefits to being free as well. It turns out that there are. The two links below take you to lists of countries based on per capita Gross Domestic Product, and a variety of indexes of freedom.
Glancing through the lists you can detect a pattern. Countries that are not free, also have low levels of per capita GDP. This makes sense if you think about it. If a regime is willing to allow individuals the economic freedom to become wealthy, they can also become political threats. In order to stay in charge, it may be necessary to keep the general population in poverty, isolated from the rest of the world. The general story is that the bulk of the expenditures of unfree countries are spent on the whatever is necessary to keep the population in submission. In order to allow individuals the freedom to prosper, or to challenge orthodox belief, an existing regime has to have the courage to allow itself to be challenged. Few are willing to do so, though there are material benefits if the challenge is allowed to go forward.
One historical example is Galileo Galilee, the person credited with developing the concept of modern science. He spent the last ten years of his life under house arrest for challenging the orthodox position held by the Catholic Church that the Earth was in the center of the cosmos and all the planets, suns and stars revolved around it. The geocentric view was based on religious dogma and mandated by government. The heliocentric view was based on scientific observation, but eventually condemned by government. The problem was that the former was wrong and the later was right, as would eventually be generally accepted. The church's mandate however interrupted the ability of scientific investigation to go forward. An accurate understanding of the natural and physical world would be impossible to develop without the freedom to challenge dogma.
Two centuries later, this idea would be expressed more clearly by John Stuart Mill, in his book On Liberty. Progress, he states, is impossible without the ability of people to fully express their opinions, meaning that they are free from the imposition of opinion by government, or other outside forces. The primary goal ought to be to ensure that discourse rests on truth, and that truth can only be determined in a "marketplace of ideas" where various opinions can come into conflict. To say that an idea is orthodox, or dogmatic, is to say that it can't be challenged. But what if it is wrong, as was the geocentric view of the universe? To allow orthodox opinion to be challenged provides an opportunity for error to be replaced with trutu. But even if the orthodox belief proves to be true, allowing it be challenged provides an opportunity for people to reexamine their opinions, to revisit why they think they way they do so they have actual knowledge of the subject and are not simply repeating the same statements over and over without understanding what they mean. Free discourse on ideas leads to the development of a more rational populace.
Mills' argument focuses primarily on political freedom, but a similar argument was made in favor of economic freedom by Adam Smith, in his 1776 work An Inquiry into the Causes of the Wealth of Nations. In brief, Smith argues that without the heavy hand of government, markets become efficient and more productive. Instead of one central authority making decisions about what should be produced and how, the interplay within the marketplace should make that determination. Competition among various producers for the patronage of consumers would produce the most appropriate products, at the optimal price, as if "led by an invisible hand." Same thing with the production of goods. Rather than allow government to determine how goods ought to be provided, individual producers should be free to do so. He describes an assembly line in a pin making factory that uses unskilled labor to produce far more pins, section by section, than skilled laborers making pins separately could. Economic freedom led to greater productivity, and greater wealth in society. Smith did not argue against all governmental intervention, he was convinced that business people could not meet without eventually colluding to fix process, but the economic system should be as free from restraint as possible.
An interesting consequence of Smith's ideas is its impact on the development of democracies. Smith, in many ways, was describing events that had evolved over the course of British history. For many centuries prior to his writings, certain productive urban areas (most notably London), were given a degree of economic freedom. They had "ancient rights and liberties" which protected them from arbitrary actions of the monarch, as long as they did not interfere excessively with the monarch's political prerogatives. Political life was dominated by the monarch, and in the House of Lords, by the the nobility and church officials. But economic freedom allowed for the development of a wealthy merchant class from the commoners. Eventually they would be able to have a special institution created where their grievances could be expressed, which came to be known as the House of Commons. Finally the influence of both the monarch and the House of Lords would wane, and the House of Commons would be the dominant political entity in Great Britain. The lesson is that economic freedom can lead to, and may be a necessary pre-condition for political freedom. The Definition of Politics.
Key Terms: Politics, Values, Interests
One key consequence of individual freedom is a vibrant political sector, in addition to economic and social institutions that also become involved in the political process. As with "government," the term "politics" has various meanings:
The authoritarian allocation of values in society
The struggle over who gets what
Intrigue or maneuvering within a political unit or group in order to gain control or power
The total complex of relations between people living in society
A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage.
Contrast these with the definitions of government at the top of the page. While "government" refers to those who have authority over law, "politics" refers to the efforts to influence what that law looks like, who it benefits, who its hurts and how. Politics is essentially about conflict in society and how it is resolved. Political disputes tend to fall into two classes; the first involves interests and the second, values.
Interests tend to be material. Who has a material stake in a particular issue and what side are they on? If we consider the benefits in society to be zero sum, then one persons gains are an others loss. Tax increases, governmental regulations, federal subsidies all benefit one side and harm another. This has been true throughout American history, the fight over the ratification of the Constitution itself pit those who benefited from state power on one side and those who stood to benefit from national power on the other.
Values tend to be moral, and generally concern equality and liberty. Areas of conflict include how ought society be structured. Who ought to be able to participate in government? What actions should individuals be able to do, and what should be made illegal? Should government be a vehicle for maximizing the general well-being of each individual in society or should it simply stick to providing basic services? These disputes tend to divide into ideologies. The term ideology is defined as a set of issue positions based on some underlying belief system. The two dominant ideologies in the United States are liberal and conservative. Generally put, liberals are those who see equality as being the most important value and position themselves on issues accordingly. Conservatives see liberty as the dominant value and do likewise. Since liberty and equality are often at odds, conflict between the two sides is inevitable.
I'll conclude this section with an overview of the types of political institutions that exist in the United States. This also provides a preview of some of the chapters we will cover later this semester. A point of clarity is in order first. I reserve the term "government" to refer to the institutions that have the actual authority to make, execute, or interpret the laws. This means the legislative, executive and judicial institutions established in the Constitution. Political institutions are those that attempt to influence those institutions. There are three types: political parties, interest groups and the media.
A political party can be defined as a group of people who organize politically in order to compete in elections and control a governments institutions.
An interest group is also a group of people who organize politically, but they do not compete for political office themselves. They simply seek to influence those who occupy political office.
The media, or the press, can be defined as those who seek to provide information to the mass public about political, governmental and other matters. Past written assignments:
- Below I mention the two central components of government. Using available online resources, find out which institutions have authority over these powers on the national state and local levels. How does each perform this function?
- Again, using online resources, select examples across the world of autocratic, oligarchic, and democratic systems. Look at countries other than the United States. Critically evaluate each.
- Analyze the definition of democracy and critically assess whether the United States is in fact a democracy. Provide a string reason why it is, and an equally strong reason why it is not.
- One of the more important distinctions in politics is based on ideology, especially that between people who call themselves liberal and conservative. Select a current area of political conflict and clearly establish the liberal position and the conservative position. Explain it as best you can.
- Governments can be based on coercion, or on consent. What is the difference between these two? Give an example of governments based on coercion, and those based on consent. Use current events to give examples. Just to throw a curve ball at this, aren't all governments based on coercion?
- I argue that American government has autocratic, oligarchic, and democratic components. Again, using current events (like the oil spill etc...) provide examples of the advantages and disadvantages of each type of system and how in fact governing institutions demonstrate each. Apply the material in the written material to actual events.
- In the written material I provide some simple distinctions between ideological view points. For the third time, use current disputes as a way to understand the how conservatives and liberals approach the same issues in different ways. You should also try to understand disputes that exist among conservatives and among liberals.
Here are power points for this week's readings, use this as your primary source of information for the assessment questions. Please make sure you can not only open this, but can open the links within the slides. If you cannot, let me know soon:
Also look thorugh these. They were put together for the GOVT 2305 class, but apply here as well.
The notes below are supplemental, but not necessary for the assessment.
Goals:
This section is designed to prepare you for the material to come by introducing you to the concepts that the American governing system is founded on, as well as points of comparison with other systems. If after reading the material below, as well as the powerpoints above, you can fully answer these questions, you should do well on any test or written work associated with it.
Relevant Blog Tags: These will take you to previous posts on my blog which relate to some of the subject matter conatined in this section.
Notes: the readings below are contained in a more complete form in the PDF above.
Defining Government.
Key Terms: Government, Authority, Institutions, Process, Laws.
It is probably appropriate to begin this class by defining terms. We'll begin with the term "government."
A variety of definitions are often used to define the word government. Here are a few:
- The act of governing; the exercise of authority; the administration of laws; control; direction; regulation; as, civil, church, or family government
- A government is the body within an organization that has the authority to make and enforce rules, laws and regulation
- The institution with the monopoly on the legitimate use of coercion in society.
- the political direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, and states; direction of the affairs of a state, community, etc.; political administration:
Government is necessary to the existence of civilized society.A variety of concepts are central to the definition. These include institutions, procedures, authority, laws, land and people. The governing institutions in the United States are the legislative, executive and judicial branches. These are the venues where people who are elected or appointed by the appropriate people come to either make, implement, or interpret the law. Within each of these institutions are certain procedures for how things are conducted. These procedures include the need for a police officer to have "probably cause" before searching someone, or the ability of a small number of Senators to filibuster a piece of legislation, or the ability of the Supreme Court to declare that a law violates the Constitution. When government makes a decision, it is authoritative. It can be applied corrosively if necessary.
Everything government does revolves around the idea that it is either making, enforcing, or interpreting law. But as with defining "government," defining "law" can be difficult as well. The terms can be slippery. Hard and fast definitions of the term that are acceptable to everyone are impossible to find. For our purposes, we can distinguish between statutory, common, and constitutional law. Statutory law refers to acts of Congress, or any other legislative body. Common law refers to the body of legal code, based on the decisions made by judges over the centuries that has developed over the course of British and American history. Constitutional law refers to those produces and stipulations that are written in the U.S. Constitution.
The Essential Components of Government: A Means of Coercion and a Means of Collecting Revenue
Key Terms: Military, Police, Conscription, Taxation, Revenue
The definitions above suggest that there are a variety of components to government. This can certainly be the case. The decentralized American system, has three branches, 50 state and thousands of local governments. Over the course of American history the functions of government have grown complex, but there are only two institutions that are necessary in a government.
The first is a means for coercing people to follow the law, which can be a military or police force, or some type of militia. Governments cannot achieve its goals -- whether we consider it to be legitimate or illegitimate -- if they lack the ability to compel people to follow its laws, or to perform certain services like obtain a drivers license or submit to conscription. In fact laws are often meaningless if they are not enforced. We tend to not obey speed limits voluntarily.
The second is a means for collecting revenue, generally by imposing some type of tax, tariff or fee. This is necessarily of course to earn the revenue needed to obtain the mechanisms necessary to coerce people to follow the law, so there's a circular element to these two components. It's worth noting that opposition to taxes tend to be one of the more effective political rallying cries in American history. It would not be an overstatement to say that the country was founded by an anti-tax movement, so the proper design of taxation systems have been a challenge ever since.
The Origins of Government.
Key Terms: Coercion, Consent.
How did governments emerge? What factors drove their creation? This is a tough question, one that pits historical explanations against theoretical ones. History tells a brutal story, one based on coercion. People are coerced into a governing system by a more powerful force. They are conquered by the Romans or Egyptians or Persians or whomever. A conquered people is often subjugated, so a system of government based solely on coercion tends to also stratify people into classes. Some are the permanent ruling class, while others are obliged to follow the laws imposed on them by the ruling class. See feudalism for an example. Philosophical systems are sometimes developed to justify these hierarchical structures. Plato's noble lie is an example.
More recently, at least in a historical sense, governments have been argued to have developed on consent, or at least the claim is that this is the most legitimate way to develop a government. This argument is often dated to the works of John Locke who hypothesized that a state of nature -- a world without government -- where people have full right to life, liberty and property would also be dangerous. It is one thing to have a right to something, it is another thing to secure that right. In order to do so, rational individuals would consent to form an organization -- a government -- to that end. The concept of consent differs substantively from that of coercion since it rests on the idea that each individual is in a position to offer consent, that is, they are equal to a large degree. We explore Locke's ideas more fully in the following section.
Additional Readings:
The Difference Between Autocratic, Oligarchic, and Democratic Government.
Key Terms: Sovereignty, Autocracy, Oligarchy, Democracy
Governments tend to fall into three categories depending upon where sovereign power is located. The term sovereignty refers to the supreme political power and specifically where in fact it can be found in a political order. In an autocratic system, sovereignty is located in a single individual, in an oligarchy, in a small handful of well placed people, while in a democracy, it rests with the people. A word on the concept is important before we proceed. While the concept of sovereignty seems straight forward, it has a peculiar twist in a constitutional system, based on the people, with representative institutions that claim their authority comes from the fact that it was delegated to them by the people. Has sovereignty been transfered from the people to the representatives? In our constitutional system, is sovereignty still vested in the people, or was it granted to the people's house (the Congress) which acts for the benefit of the people and is subject to removal, through elections, by them? Perhaps sovereignty rests somewhere between the two? It's a theoretical point to be sure, but played a role in the late 19th century when questions were raised about what a city was. Some argued that since these were population centers populated by individuals with unalienable rights, they were discreet autonomous units whose authority rested on popular sovreignty. But this position lost out to the idea that cities existed, as legal entities -- meanign they can cfreate and enforce their own laws -- by a specific grant of the state they resided in. There's more on this point later.
Autocracies can take different forms, but they all share the common characteristic that one person holds all power. The term dictator is commonly used and has a history dating back to Ancient Rome. In the Roman Constitution, a provision existed that during times of crisis, an individual could be vested with unlimited power for a brief period of time in order to consolidate the resources and decision-making necessary to confront the crisis. One of these dictators, Cincinnatus, actually developed a good reputation over history because he gave up power after completing his appointed objectives. Centuries later, Washington would be held up as a modern day Cincinnatus because he refused to allow himself to be appointed as a monarch after the end of the revolutionary war as was, and still is the custom. On the other hand, another Roman -- Julius Caesar -- used the position to leverage for greater power, a move which led to the end of the Roman Republic and the establishment of the Roman Empire. The comparison between these two people helps point out the pros and cons of autocratic systems. Their advantage is the efficiency they offer a capable, virtuous leader to govern effectively, but the disadvantage is the opportunity it provides an ambitious person to rule arbitrarily, and despotically.
Oligarchies also have long histories, and are generally societies that are run by some type of elite. Their position may be due to birth, or wealth, or by having a privileged position in a religious or bureaucratic institution. Aristocratic systems, such as the British system which American government evolved from, are based on birthright. Being a member of the aristocracy brought with it certain privileges, a guaranteed seat in a governing institution (the House of Lords) for example. The term oligarchy refers to a broad range of systems that have different means of determining who the elites in society were, and giving them special status on the assumption that they could rule society better than the common folk. The use of property ownership as a criteria for voting in the early years of the United States was based on the belief that those that owned America were best able to govern it. To be wealthy was a sign of ability, and why not allow them to rule? The concept of a meritocracy is related to this. One of the deep seated beliefs Americans have is that we all have an equal opportunity to succeed, which means that those who climb to the top deserve their positions. The knowledge and expertise these people bring to a governing system ensures that it will be well run. But the flip side is that those in positions of authority who can craft society's rules can design them to their own advantage. Those who have the gold make the rules, as the saying goes. So oligarchies can introduce bias in society. This distorts the concept of equal opportunity. Perhaps some have a greater advantage in where they start out in society and do not have to truly prove their abilities.
Democracies also have long histories, dating back at least to ancient Athens. The difference between a democracy and the previous two forms of government is that it allows the governed to rule themselves. As we know, the concept of self government lies at the heart of the American governing system and is tightly adhered to by the general public. The advantage of democracy is that people will be more likely to consider the governing system legitimate if they see themselves as being able to influence it. Rather than being coerced by an autocratic or oligarchies elite, the people will be more likely to consent to being governed because if they do not like the nature of the system, they can change it. Both the Roman Republic and the British system, despite their oligarchic natures, allowed for non elites to control a governing institution in order to help keep the peace. In Rome it was the Plebeian Council while in Britain it was, and till is, the House of Commons. Without the ability to influence the course of events from the inside, the people have no choice to do so from the outside through protest, riots, and revolution. But it is this aspect of mass behavior which gave democracy a bad reputation. Rather than rule by a thoughtful educated elite, rule would be based upon an uneducated mob. Reason would no longer prevail, only muscle threats and intimidation. Policies would not be based on cool deliberation designed to guarantee long term effectiveness, but on passionate desire for short term satisfaction.
Additional Info:
The Manner in Which Each is Contained in the American System: America is an Autocracy, Oligarchy and Democracy all Wrapped in One.
Key Terms: Legislature, Executive, Judiciary.
If you were keeping score, you would have noted that each of the systems outlined above have advantages and disadvantages. We all want a government that is efficient and effective, knowledgeable, and legitimate. But there is no one way to ensure that you get them all. Each of the systems above that have these advantages, also have disadvantages and can lead to governments that are arbitrary in their actions, biased in their rule-making, and prone to mobish, passionate violence. So what to do about this?
This provides an opportunity to introduce ahead of time the three branches of government -- the separated powers -- and the mechanism which keeps them separated -- the checks and balances. The philosophers tell us that there are three distinct things that governments do, they make laws, they implement laws and they interpret laws. These powers, in the hands of one person, group or institution, can lead to tyranny. They must be separated into distinct institutions. In the American Constitution -- as well as the state constitutions and local charters -- this is accomplished by vesting these three powers in legislative, executive and judicial branches. In order to ensure that they stay separated, each is given the power to check the power of the other two, which means that the power of each is also checked by those two as well. This is what allows the benefits of autocratic, oligarchic and democratic systems to be incorporated into the government, while allowing harms of each to be checked.
The executive branch is autocratic be design. Since it is the branch that carries out the law, is clearly the branch that benefits from an autocratic design. In the United States, there is only one person on top of the executive branch. Once a decision has been made to do something, it is helpful to give it to one person to do it, if it is to be done well. But since this can lead to the arbitrary use of power, it is wise to have a legislative branch than can provide oversight over the actions of the executive and a judiciary that can determine if the executive has violated Constitutional rules while executing the laws.
The judicial branch is the oligarchic branch. It interprets the law and is the one that most benefits from learned members. It is the only one singled out in the Federalist Papers as requiring members with qualifications, presumably meaning training in the law. The appointment and confirmation process, backed up by lifetime tenure, is designed to free judges to make decisions removed from popular, short term, pressures that may say more about the politics of the moment rather than a cool sober approach to the law. This can potentially lead to bias in its decisions however, which is why the legislature is often in a position to rewrite legislation, signed by the president, that it believes was in error.
The legislative branch is the democratic branch. Since it is the branch which writes the laws, must be connected closely to the people, especially in regard to taxation. The House of Representatives especially is designed to be closely connected to the people, with direct elections and two year terms of service, so that they can be quickly controlled by the general population if they veer to far in one direction or another. This can make them legitimate in the eyes of the population. But since this can lead to unruliness, and ineffectiveness, their actions are tempered by the other institutions. The Senate, for example, was originally elected by state legislatures, and Senators served for six year overlapping terms. Since they have to approve of any law passed by the House before it goes forward, they can check the more "mobish" tendencies of the House. As can the president who has the power to veto laws sent to him.
The governing system in Texas, while it is similar to the American system, differs from it in some significant ways. Th description above can apply to Texas as well. There are significant differences however that can be traced to the general desire on the part of the framers of the Texas Constitution to limit the power of government far beyond what the framers of the U.S. Constitution sought to accomplish. Briefly put, this was accomplished by establishing an amateur legislature, a plural executive, and an elected judiciary.
The Definition of Democracy.
Key Terms: majoritarianism, rights, suffrage.
Since America calls itself a democracy, it is worth investigating what in fact a democracy is. As stated above, the term democracy comes from the Greek word which translates roughly as rule by the people. At its simplest, that means the majority rules. But this creates problems for governance because a passionate majority -- the mob -- can be as oppressive as any autocrat or oligarchy. An unrestrained majority can easily trample the rights of an unpopular minority or individual (this is a point we will hammer on when we cover Federalist #10). In addition, the term does not clarify exactly what the phrase "the people" refers to. The entire population perhaps, or maybe simply a small portion of it. Currently we expect that a democracy fulfills the following three conditions:
Yes the majority rules, but it must be limited in order to ensure that the minority has certain rights. In other words, there are certain decisions that are beyond the scope of public decision making. That what it means to have rights, but it creates a conflict. When we discuss the Declaration of Independence, we will pour over the concept of the unalienable rights to (among other things) "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." This is classic liberalism, and rests on the idea that the individual and the state are separate, and the state exists to protect the rights of the individual. But in a democracy, the will of government is the embodiment of the will of the people, In a strict sense, if a democracy wants to place limits on individual liberty, it is free to do so since that is the will of the people. If it wants to impose a religious belief, or restrict certain people's access to the courts, it can do so. But this violates the concept of individual liberty. You can see the dilemma.
Resolving the dilemma was a key concern of the authors of the Constitution. How do you retain the spirit of democracy while protecting individual liberties? The solution was to establish, instead of a direct democracy, and indirect democracy, or a republic. We will go further into this subject later, but think of a direct democracy as the ability of the general population to directly control the actions of government, while a republic places representative institutions between the people and government. The intent is that any sudden fit of passion -- any mobish inclination -- will be checked and policy will be established in a slower, more thoughtful manner.
The third criteria, universal suffrage, requires that all competent adults should be able to vote. This was hardly the case in early America. Suffrage has expanded slowly and fitfully over the course of American history.
The Difference between Totalitarian, Authoritarian and Constitutional Governments.
Key Terms: Freedom, the State, Totalitarianism, Authoritarianism, Constitutionalism.
As with the description of autocracy, oligarchy and democracy above, the difference between totalitarian, authoritarian and constitutional government is based on a simple question: How much freedom do people have from government?
In totalitarian systems, the answer is simple. None. Generally the people in these systems are considered subjects of government. The rule of the state is absolute and government regulates all aspects of the lives of individuals. Society is generally structured along a dominant ideology and all institutions, especially educational, media and political institutions, are dominated by the state and opposition is outlawed. Military and police forces are pervasive, as is intelligence collection to root out enemies of the state. Communist and fascist governments tend to take this form. Stalin's Soviet Union and the communist countries of Eastern Europe.
Authoritarian governments are similar to totalitarian governments, but do not have the same degree of pervasive control over the population. Sometimes this is due to circumstance. Authoritarian countries are sometimes in a position where they have to share power with some internal or external force which limits its ability to expand its power further. The military regimes in Chile and Argentina in the 1980s were limited, for example, by the Catholic Church. The degree of freedom in authoritarian governments is greater than in totalitarian systems, and in fact can be quite expansive, providing that the people do not use their freedoms in political ways. The recent crackdown of protesters in Iraq is an example.
Constitutional systems are based on the idea that people are distinct entities from government, and that the relationship between the two systems reflects a contract entered into by the two where the government exists to secure the rights of the people. A constitution is a written manifestation of this agreement and defines the obligations of government, how it will conduct business, and what specific limits exist on its powers.
Additional Reading:
The Justification for, and Consequences of, Individual Liberty.
In America, we tend to think of freedom as a virtue without necessarily coming to grips with why this is so. The principle philosophical source of the modern conception of liberty is John Locke. He did not originate the idea, but his expression of it was vitally important to the American revolution. We will cover him, his ideas and how they influenced the American system in the following section. But it is also worth considering whether there are material benefits to being free as well. It turns out that there are. The two links below take you to lists of countries based on per capita Gross Domestic Product, and a variety of indexes of freedom.
Glancing through the lists you can detect a pattern. Countries that are not free, also have low levels of per capita GDP. This makes sense if you think about it. If a regime is willing to allow individuals the economic freedom to become wealthy, they can also become political threats. In order to stay in charge, it may be necessary to keep the general population in poverty, isolated from the rest of the world. The general story is that the bulk of the expenditures of unfree countries are spent on the whatever is necessary to keep the population in submission. In order to allow individuals the freedom to prosper, or to challenge orthodox belief, an existing regime has to have the courage to allow itself to be challenged. Few are willing to do so, though there are material benefits if the challenge is allowed to go forward.
One historical example is Galileo Galilee, the person credited with developing the concept of modern science. He spent the last ten years of his life under house arrest for challenging the orthodox position held by the Catholic Church that the Earth was in the center of the cosmos and all the planets, suns and stars revolved around it. The geocentric view was based on religious dogma and mandated by government. The heliocentric view was based on scientific observation, but eventually condemned by government. The problem was that the former was wrong and the later was right, as would eventually be generally accepted. The church's mandate however interrupted the ability of scientific investigation to go forward. An accurate understanding of the natural and physical world would be impossible to develop without the freedom to challenge dogma.
Two centuries later, this idea would be expressed more clearly by John Stuart Mill, in his book On Liberty. Progress, he states, is impossible without the ability of people to fully express their opinions, meaning that they are free from the imposition of opinion by government, or other outside forces. The primary goal ought to be to ensure that discourse rests on truth, and that truth can only be determined in a "marketplace of ideas" where various opinions can come into conflict. To say that an idea is orthodox, or dogmatic, is to say that it can't be challenged. But what if it is wrong, as was the geocentric view of the universe? To allow orthodox opinion to be challenged provides an opportunity for error to be replaced with trutu. But even if the orthodox belief proves to be true, allowing it be challenged provides an opportunity for people to reexamine their opinions, to revisit why they think they way they do so they have actual knowledge of the subject and are not simply repeating the same statements over and over without understanding what they mean. Free discourse on ideas leads to the development of a more rational populace.
Mills' argument focuses primarily on political freedom, but a similar argument was made in favor of economic freedom by Adam Smith, in his 1776 work An Inquiry into the Causes of the Wealth of Nations. In brief, Smith argues that without the heavy hand of government, markets become efficient and more productive. Instead of one central authority making decisions about what should be produced and how, the interplay within the marketplace should make that determination. Competition among various producers for the patronage of consumers would produce the most appropriate products, at the optimal price, as if "led by an invisible hand." Same thing with the production of goods. Rather than allow government to determine how goods ought to be provided, individual producers should be free to do so. He describes an assembly line in a pin making factory that uses unskilled labor to produce far more pins, section by section, than skilled laborers making pins separately could. Economic freedom led to greater productivity, and greater wealth in society. Smith did not argue against all governmental intervention, he was convinced that business people could not meet without eventually colluding to fix process, but the economic system should be as free from restraint as possible.
An interesting consequence of Smith's ideas is its impact on the development of democracies. Smith, in many ways, was describing events that had evolved over the course of British history. For many centuries prior to his writings, certain productive urban areas (most notably London), were given a degree of economic freedom. They had "ancient rights and liberties" which protected them from arbitrary actions of the monarch, as long as they did not interfere excessively with the monarch's political prerogatives. Political life was dominated by the monarch, and in the House of Lords, by the the nobility and church officials. But economic freedom allowed for the development of a wealthy merchant class from the commoners. Eventually they would be able to have a special institution created where their grievances could be expressed, which came to be known as the House of Commons. Finally the influence of both the monarch and the House of Lords would wane, and the House of Commons would be the dominant political entity in Great Britain. The lesson is that economic freedom can lead to, and may be a necessary pre-condition for political freedom.
The Definition of Politics.
Key Terms: Politics, Values, Interests
One key consequence of individual freedom is a vibrant political sector, in addition to economic and social institutions that also become involved in the political process. As with "government," the term "politics" has various meanings:
Contrast these with the definitions of government at the top of the page. While "government" refers to those who have authority over law, "politics" refers to the efforts to influence what that law looks like, who it benefits, who its hurts and how. Politics is essentially about conflict in society and how it is resolved. Political disputes tend to fall into two classes; the first involves interests and the second, values.
Interests tend to be material. Who has a material stake in a particular issue and what side are they on? If we consider the benefits in society to be zero sum, then one persons gains are an others loss. Tax increases, governmental regulations, federal subsidies all benefit one side and harm another. This has been true throughout American history, the fight over the ratification of the Constitution itself pit those who benefited from state power on one side and those who stood to benefit from national power on the other.
Values tend to be moral, and generally concern equality and liberty. Areas of conflict include how ought society be structured. Who ought to be able to participate in government? What actions should individuals be able to do, and what should be made illegal? Should government be a vehicle for maximizing the general well-being of each individual in society or should it simply stick to providing basic services? These disputes tend to divide into ideologies. The term ideology is defined as a set of issue positions based on some underlying belief system. The two dominant ideologies in the United States are liberal and conservative. Generally put, liberals are those who see equality as being the most important value and position themselves on issues accordingly. Conservatives see liberty as the dominant value and do likewise. Since liberty and equality are often at odds, conflict between the two sides is inevitable.
For additional information:
The Nature of Political Institutions.
I'll conclude this section with an overview of the types of political institutions that exist in the United States. This also provides a preview of some of the chapters we will cover later this semester. A point of clarity is in order first. I reserve the term "government" to refer to the institutions that have the actual authority to make, execute, or interpret the laws. This means the legislative, executive and judicial institutions established in the Constitution. Political institutions are those that attempt to influence those institutions. There are three types: political parties, interest groups and the media.
A political party can be defined as a group of people who organize politically in order to compete in elections and control a governments institutions.
An interest group is also a group of people who organize politically, but they do not compete for political office themselves. They simply seek to influence those who occupy political office.
The media, or the press, can be defined as those who seek to provide information to the mass public about political, governmental and other matters.
Past written assignments:
- Below I mention the two central components of government. Using available online resources, find out which institutions have authority over these powers on the national state and local levels. How does each perform this function?
- Again, using online resources, select examples across the world of autocratic, oligarchic, and democratic systems. Look at countries other than the United States. Critically evaluate each.
- Analyze the definition of democracy and critically assess whether the United States is in fact a democracy. Provide a string reason why it is, and an equally strong reason why it is not.
- One of the more important distinctions in politics is based on ideology, especially that between people who call themselves liberal and conservative. Select a current area of political conflict and clearly establish the liberal position and the conservative position. Explain it as best you can.
- Governments can be based on coercion, or on consent. What is the difference between these two? Give an example of governments based on coercion, and those based on consent. Use current events to give examples. Just to throw a curve ball at this, aren't all governments based on coercion?
- I argue that American government has autocratic, oligarchic, and democratic components. Again, using current events (like the oil spill etc...) provide examples of the advantages and disadvantages of each type of system and how in fact governing institutions demonstrate each. Apply the material in the written material to actual events.
- In the written material I provide some simple distinctions between ideological view points. For the third time, use current disputes as a way to understand the how conservatives and liberals approach the same issues in different ways. You should also try to understand disputes that exist among conservatives and among liberals.